June 13, 2007

"... too many Democrats seem to believe that their party will simply sail into the White House in 2008. But the conservative grass roots are in open rebellion against the waffling Washington Republican establishment, most recently because of its bungling of the incendiary immigration issue. Campaigning against the rapidly deflating Bush zeppelin is a dead end." So says Camille Paglia.

Reading that instantly planted a conspiracy theory in my head: the Republicans had a plan all along to use the immigration issue as a scheme to distract attention from the war, stir up feelings that make ordinary Americans afraid of the Democrats, and win the 2008 election. Not saying Paglia mean to plant that thought. Not saying I believe it. Just saying...

107 comments:

I read this article this morning. I hate the phrase "jump the shark," but Paglia really jumped it when she argues later in the article that Paris Hilton deserves respect. For her achievements as a model, or something.

Paglia's transparent formula for her writings is: what does everybody else think? And she just figures out some way, stupid or not, to argue the opposite, stupid or not.

It occurred to me several weeks ago that the immigration issue was "designed" as a distraction. Perhaps, but I suspect that the Republicans are not that smart and that the Democrats are perfectly capable of self destruction without any help.

Well, it's not too wild of a conspiracy theory. It lacks evidence, but then how would you get evidence of Republican electoral strategy? You wouldn't. All you can do is examine the lay of the land and draw your own conclusions.

But it's consistent with past Republican practice.

For example, they sponsored a national anti-gay hate-fest in 2004, for the same purpose: to draw out their base. And it worked.

How any person of moral conscience could have gone along with that hateful pogrom is beyond me. Well, no, it's not. The fact is that a lot of people feel a lot of hate for a lot of people.

And Republicans have mastered the art of using those feelings and finding wedge issues that help them in elections.

ann,here are some numbers that should put to rest your theory relating to the republican's use of the "immigration" problem:

WASHINGTON — A strong majority of Americans — including nearly two-thirds of Republicans — favor allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

That is a striking show of support for a primary element of an immigration overhaul bill that has stalled in the Senate amid conservative opposition.

Only 23% of adults surveyed opposed allowing undocumented immigrants to gain legal status. That finding bolsters the view, shared by President Bush, that the bill's opponents represent a vocal minority whereas most people are more welcoming toward illegal immigrants.

Paglia is really smart and great observer (bit of out of box) like you. I did not see her even hint the immigtation debacle was a clever plot.

If you even think it was, you would have to believe the Republicans are really great at appearing to do really dumb stuff to gain political points.

And Lucky - those polls you love to embrace never ask questions like "do you approve the bill if it allows felons and gang members and those with existing deportation orders to stay and get on path to citizenship?"

Re attacking Bush bein a non-starter for Dems in 2008, this is true, but don't hold your breath. I've made the same point in comments here several times - most recently last week, trying to explain the obvious to HDhouse - but it never seems to persuade Eli, Harry, and so on. They think that the public is going to look at the Bush administration and assume that the general public will go into 2008 mistaking it for a referendum on the Bush presidency, which it simply will not be unless a member of the administration is on the ticket.

The reason why Americans flocked to carve the millennia-old status of marriage as a heterosexual institution into their constitutions is simple: most Americans are, and have always been, of the opinion that gay marriage isn't real marriage. Gay rights activists played a weak hand too early by pushing the courts to legislate from the bench, and the predicatable backlash followed. They should have waited another ten years or so, and demographic shifts would have let them win democratically.

The gay marriage ban movement didn't scare people into voting for Republicans -- most Democratic leaders are against gay marriage too. The reason the gay marriage bans helped Republicans is that they increased voter turnout among social conservatives, who tend to be strongly against gay marriage. Social liberals, on the other hand, tend to be only weakly for gay marriage -- they're for it in theory, but since almost all of them are straight it isn't something most of them get angry about.

Anyway, the reason the immigration conspiracy theory doesn't work is simple: Bush and most of the leading Republicans all supported the amnesty bill. It didn't convince people to fear the Democrats -- anyone with sense already knew the Democrats were useless on immigration issues. What the amnesty fiasco did was convince a whole lot of people that Republicans aren't any better on immigration -- and that's not going to help them at all in 2008.

the poll was conducted by a major polling company and evidently reflects what YOU personally don't want to hear. (even the pollsters were surprised, considering the recent news accounts, etc.)

as for your claim that they don't ask: "do you approve the bill if it allows felons and gang members and those with existing deportation orders to stay and get on path to citizenship?"

it's a ridiculous argument and makes absolutely no sense. an overwhelming number of the legal and even illegal immigrants in america aren't felons or gang members. (then again, i have no idea where you happen to live. i live in southern california where there are plenty of hispanics and your comment would be considered laughable at best.)

simon,if you really think the next election won't be a "referendum on the Bush presidency"...you're dreaming.

between now and november 2008, we'll hear a re-run of every single time this administration has either done the wrong thing in the first place, screwed up the aftermath or just plain screwed up from start to finish.

you can also look for health care to dominate the debates between the democrats and republicans, too.

*everybody already knows iraq was a huge blunder...and hopefully we can do something to reduce the dying and wounded americans.

"as for your claim that they don't ask: "do you approve the bill if it allows felons and gang members and those with existing deportation orders to stay and get on path to citizenship?" .....it's a ridiculous argument and makes absolutely no sense. an overwhelming number of the legal and even illegal immigrants in america aren't felons or gang members."

Lucky- the bill allowed felons, gang members and those with deportation orders to be included in the legalization status. So why is that a ridiculous facet to the argument? You claim the majority are law abiding . I spoke to a CA resident today who claims the jails are overcrowded due to criminal illegals.

Bottom line, when someone presents an offer (i.e the bill), Americans weigh all parts and this criminal/ gang member issue is not OK according to any poll I have seen.

WASHINGTON — A strong majority of Americans — including nearly two-thirds of Republicans — favor allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

Two points:

(1): The phrase "and meet other requirements" destroys any possible scientific value the question might have had -- for sufficiently strict "other requirements" just about anyone would support letting illegals become citizens.

(2): The bill was a lot more complicated than that question suggests, and would have done both more and less than provide certain kinds of illegals with a "path to citizenship". So even if the poll question was valid -- which, as I noted above, it was not -- it still wouldn't prove that the immigration bill was killed by "a minority".

Anyway, the reason the immigration conspiracy theory doesn't work is simple: Bush and most of the leading Republicans all supported the amnesty bill. It didn't convince people to fear the Democrats -- anyone with sense already knew the Democrats were useless on immigration issues. What the amnesty fiasco did was convince a whole lot of people that Republicans aren't any better on immigration -- and that's not going to help them at all in 2008.

Good point but considering that all but one or two of the presidential contenders (McCain and IIRC Huckabee) have come out four-square against the immigration bill, it could work to their advantage by giving the serious contenders (Giuliani, Romney, and Thomas if he enters the race) a high-profile issue that distinguishes them from the administration and is popular amongst both the GOP base and the country at large.

Lucky: all polls are crap, as anyone who has looked into it understands. You can get any answer that you like, and people with experience in analysing polls and the reporting of them have seen far too many examples of cherry picking responses from a poll as well as poll questions designed with intent. Figures never lie, but liars figure and all the other aphorisms in our culture are there for a reason.

Candidate polls tend to be cleaner since most of the time the people paying for and/or reporting them want to get the actual sense of the population to help their campaigns or help their business avoid a "Dewey defeats Truman" headline. Push polls are still frequent in that realm - as either regular push polls of the "what would you think of candidate X beats his wife" variety or meta-push polls trying to paint the candidate in a certain position to help their campaign (big dog to drive out others or make a race look closer to drive out supporters who may stay home if victory is apparent).

On issues, polls generally suck and the reporting on them is abominable. You usually see dramatically different responses to slightly different answers, dramatically different reporting of the same responses (abortion is the most frequent question, where about 25% are for fully legal and fully illegal each, while about 50% think there should be some restrictions - 75% of the population both supports abortion and thinks that it needs to be more restricted than currently, and what headline gets out depends on which media or PR operation is writing about a given poll).

For more ongoing analysis of the horrendous pollinhg on issues in general and immigration in particular, see Mickey Kaus at Slate and the Mystery Pollster blog. Mickey has specifically taken the LAT/Bloomberg poll out to the woodshed for sloppy errors of omission and comission. Buit in general, polling is hard and you can screw up easily without any intent if you aren't exceptionally careful and methodical in preparing your poll questions. The best polls are continual ones like Rasmussen robo-polls that have huge time-series to allow for variation in the population and help by letting you tweak your questions and randomize them sufficiently to get closer to the actual opinion of the population.

The phrase "and meet other requirements" destroys any possible scientific value the question might have had -- for sufficiently strict "other requirements" just about anyone would support letting illegals become citizens.

Agreed, particularly if “other requirements” is interpreted to mean “return to the their country of origin and follow the same process as legal immigrants who obey the law.”

Personally, I’m not as concerned about what we do the twelve million illegal aliens in the country so long as we can secure the border and enforce the laws we have first. Then we can screen them and deal with them accordingly. My only concern is that I don’t want a repeat of 1986 – the last “comprehensive immigration reform” – where we were promised enforcement along with amnesty but only got the amnesty for three million which encouraged another twelve million to come latter. It’s not just about dealing with every facet of the problem; it’s also about the order in which we do things because if some things are done before others (e.g. amnesty before securing the border and enforcement) the results could be worse than the status quo.

1. how are we going to find the 12-20 million "illegals" that are supposedly here...and how long will it take? (can you say...a very long time...if ever?)

2. who will do it, and how long will it take, to document the legal or illegal status of those who are located? (can you say broken system?)

3. how long do we hold those who may be legal, but with verification problems that have to be addressed...and where do we hold them...and who pays for their incarceration, food and health care? (can you say...who knows, our prisons are already full...and lots of $$$$$?)

4. when we do send the illegals back, and they are the breadwinner, who supports the "legal" dependents left behind? (can you say...we do?)

*we're trapped like rats and some kind of amnesty, verification, fine, etc. program has to be put in place. oh, and as for the "felons, etc." lynch mentions...well, we've got plenty of american citizens who fit that bill who are already here.

"between now and november 2008, we'll hear a re-run of every single time this administration has either done the wrong thing in the first place, screwed up the aftermath or just plain screwed up from start to finish."

So the Democrats won't be advancing a vision? Pretty par for the course for them lately. They get the House and Senate, and instead of putting forth a legislative agenda, they're HOLDING HEARINGS about stuff that most of the country doesn't understand, and doesn't care about. Have they passed any legislation of note this session? I notice that the approval numbers for Congress are lower than for Bush. Heh.

Yeah, there's the old Health Care issue, but after Hillary screwed that up when she was married to the President do you really think it'll be a plus or minus to bring that up again?

to the extent that the GOP candidate aligns himself with bush's policies (hello, iraq?), attacks on bush are not just useful, they are essential. even if the candidate somehow disassociates himself from bush (and, from what i've seen thus far, that is not happening), it would be fundamentally dumb for a democrat to not attempt to tar the GOP candidate with his party association with the 28% approval-holder.

sorry to interrupt your delusion that the GOP (or the electorate) can somehow forget that the past 8 years happened.

So the Democrats won't be advancing a vision? Pretty par for the course for them lately. They get the House and Senate, and instead of putting forth a legislative agenda, they're HOLDING HEARINGS about stuff that most of the country doesn't understand, and doesn't care about.

thankfully, their legislative and administrative agenda is not predicated on your intellect.

also, polls indicate that majority of the country is very interested in the us attorney scandal, and the majority thinks definite wrongdoing occurred. how interesting that nobody here, outside of the token 3-4 liberals, agrees.

kevin,when you say: "the old Health Care issue"...it tells me you have no idea how big that specific issue is right now for a vast majority of americans.

i'm going to take a guess and say you have plenty of insurance that is either provided by your employer or you carry insurance provided by a member of your family. (and if you pay for your own, i'd love to know what you pay. my wife and i have insurance coverage through a major corporation and still pay another $400 a month for coverage that is necessary.)

*right now there are 45,000,000 americans how have NO INSURANCE and one single medical emergency could wipe out every dollar they've ever saved.

to handle the southern border it will be 1,800 miles long and will take approximately 6 years (and you can bet many more) to build, will cost billions and billions...will have to be monitored by thousands of people and we have no idea whether it will do anything.(as in: can mexicans swim? can they get their hands on a boat? a ladder? can they dig? can they still fit inside a the trunk of a car, truck, van or tractor-trailer? can they travel east and west of the wall?)

and then, we can start on the 4,000 mile wall to protect the northern border...from...THE TERRORISTS and THE MEXICANS WHO TRAVEL!!!!!

The new poll finds that neither Mexicans nor Americans want a wall on their border. An overwhelming majority of Mexicans—90 percent—disagree with the idea of building a wall between the United States and Mexico.

A large majority of Americans, 69 percent, also reject the idea, while 28 percent agree with it.

Luckyoldson said..."if you really think the next election won't be a "referendum on the Bush presidency"...you're dreaming. between now and november 2008, we'll hear a re-run of every single time this administration has either done the wrong thing in the first place, screwed up the aftermath or just plain screwed up from start to finish."

I'm not saying that the dems won't try to turn it into such, I'm saying that no one who wasn't already a certain dem voter will buy it. If Condi Rice, or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumseld, or Al Gonzales were on the ticket, it might be plausible to call this a referendum on the Bush administration. But y'all already had a referendum on it, you lost, and in the next election, the candidate won't be someone who was part of the Bush administration.

Seven Machos said..."People want a wall between the United States and Mexico. It is an overwhelmingly popular idea in every strata except with self-proclaimed elitists."

Quite - and even those who are opposed to closing the border must be aware that Victor Hugo's oft-quoted aphorism that "there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come" is not limited to good ideas whose time has come.

simon,victor hugo aside...even if EVERYBODY wanted a wall...it would be years and years and years before one was actually built,(americans have this thing about china, etc.), and no one here appears ready or willing to address my points regarding time, money, laws and the system in place.

and...as to your comment regarding rummy and the rest of inept weasels not being on the ticket in 2008, so who cares about how horrible the bush administration has been...i guess we'll just have to wait and see...but i think you're wrong.

Simon - They think that the public is going to look at the Bush administration and assume that the general public will go into 2008 mistaking it for a referendum on the Bush presidency, which it simply will not be unless a member of the administration is on the ticket.

4:08 PM

Perceptive. Democrats will simply be unable to not get sucked up into running on "who lied about the yellowcake 5 years ago!!", who let the 43 gay linguist heroes who could have won the war on terror go 4 years ago ???(the 43 out of 3,600,000 Americans who know Arabic)

It was like that beautiful experience of Democrats running against Nixon - in 1980, when Reagan was running.

*************The deranged Left is now unable to talk about politics without adapting the persona of a Prosecutor seeking indictments for long past things or trivial offenses. Unable to speak of the interests of the American people because they believe that disses and leaves out illegal aliens and terrorist's "civil liberties".

Americans will want a leader that first and foremost is able to show good prospects for leading the nation with the pragmatism and competency Bush II, like Carter, lacked.That favors the Dems as less tainted by the Bush Presidency, but the Dems will be in full pander mode to their hard Left, progressive Jewish, gay, and welfare state black base - which offends about 80% of the rest of America.

The immigration flap is good because it just about seals the doom of the Manchurian Candidate, who is out of step with America and the Republican base.

In another year, the sh*t will have hit the fan, most likely. Civil War in Iraq, Musharaff's fall, Iran accidentally gives the US its cause to start war.

Only Hillary on the Dem's side looks to have the experince and judgment to be a strong, effective leader who will stand up for vital US interests.The Republicans appear to have Giuliani, Romney, Thompson who might fit the bill.

The country likes divided rule after seeing the Dems go hog wild in spending and corruption when they ran DC on their own, then saw it took only around 7 years from 1994 for Republicans to become as bad or worse in corruption and reckless spending..

I have had the same thought, that Bush is taking one for the team. Good distraction, good base energizer, from the lame duck. However, his maniacal alliance with Ted Kennedy to jam the bill down our throats has also caused a huge drop in contributions to the RNC and has turned what few sympathetic media outlets he had against him. Surely Rove, the great "strategerist," could have foreseen this?!

Lucky:Data is right from the US Census data for 2005. People without insurance:

Income of $50-$75K = 8.3 Million Income over $75K = 8.74 Million Foreign Born = 11.9 Million (of those 9.5 Million are non-citizens)Let's add people 18-24 years of age = 8.6 Million (note - stats are not all mutually exclusive).

The health insurance crisis is trumped up because the number 45 million sounds much better to a liberal wheeny who does not want to fix but just wants to whine.

The guvmint should address the common dilemma of the average Josephine who is between jobs. COBRA plabs are not the answer. Afterall, most of these people either don't need or don't want to pay or are not citizens.

Find the website data yourself at www.uscensus.gov. I found it very easily and you are way smarter than me.

N.B.: Bringing facts to a discussion about health care to a liberal is a lost cause, and not worth the time unless one is on a fool’s errand.

Regardless, ask the smarter-than-nearly-everyone-else Liberal how to provide health care to all without raising taxes, rationing care or capping provider rates while ensuring we have enough doctors, nurses, hospital beds, prescription drugs and medical devices for 300 million Americans (and 12 million illegals) and they will either: 1) not answer; 2) answer with a lie (that it can be done); 3) answer truthfully that something has to give (tax increases, rationing, provider rate caps, provider shortages or some combination thereof).

Those are the tradeoffs under the current 54/46 system. Completely socialize the system, and the tradeoffs are even more extreme. One simply cannot expand coverage, maintain access, maintain patient safety AND reduce costs. It is impossible. Something has to give.

Luckyoldson said..."no one here appears ready or willing to address my points regarding time, money, laws and the system in place."

That's because your points are so thin and the counter-arguments so well-rehearsed, so often made, so easy to find on the internet, and so unlikely to persuade you that it isn't worth time to bother reiterating them.

"as to your comment regarding rummy and the rest of inept weasels not being on the ticket in 2008, so who cares about how horrible the bush administration has been...."

My point isn't "who cares" my point is that America at large is forward-looking. The American people aren't as stupid as you seem to hope they are; they're far less interested in recriminations about decisions that can't be changed than figuring out how to face the challenges ahead. Historians care about how horrible the bush administration has been. Voters care, too, they're just not going to make a decision about who should follow Bush premised on the fact that "this guy has an R after his name, and so did Bush, I hate Bush, so I must hate this guy." Personally I think he's been a dire President, who has made a mockery of several aspects of the Republican credo, and I would hate to have to vote for him again, but whatever my disagreements with him in the past and present he's not on the ballot in the future.

its amazing --- the loons here baldly assert that americans want a damned wall separating the united states and mexico like we're the soviet union, and then, when presented with polls showing just the opposite, they keep making the same claims.

yes, cedarford, someone is deranged here. (hint, its not the dread left that makes you clutch your pillow).

its amazing --- the loons here baldly assert that americans want a damned wall separating the united states and mexico like we're the soviet union,

I wasn't aware that the Soviet Union built a wall to keep everyone from emigrating to the worker's paradise.

But seriously, for us loons who simply think its a very bad idea to allow completely unfettered access across our borders, I would welcome the enlightened opinions as to what we should do.

1) Do you advocate open borders and if so, does that mean everyone can come in or just those south of the non-border?

2) If not an open border advocate, but no wall advocate, do you support a massive increase in border patrol officers who will halt and send back anyone trying to cross the border illegally?

3) Do you support enforcing the laws on the books now and crack down on employers and deport anyone in the country illegally?

I only ask because all I have seen from the left on this issue is excuses that we can't do anything with the 12 million now, building a wall is bad, must integrate the ones here now and securing the border, well that's kinda distasteful.

Why did the immigration bill fail with a Republican president pushing it and a Democratic House and Senate with leadership pushing it?

When Mickey Kaus and Lou Dobbs and the right-wing blogs all agree on something, and when seantors and representatives who are pushed by their leadership on a bill balk at it, it's fair to say that a majority of people don't want it. I say it's a huge majority.

I've never said I agree with any of this. I'm saying it's the facts on the ground. But go ahead, tell me I am wrong again.

De-regulated, open border immigration and amnesty for foreign, illegal aliens are good;

De-regulated, open border free trade and competitive markets for foreign goods and services are bad.

Indeed.

Because America can support endless immigration with high-wage jobs that more than pay for their demands upon public infrastructure, while less expensive goods and services resulting from foreign competition is a dire threat to the nation's prosperity and economic security.

Socialism in one country and capitalism in one country are equally fallacious.

It is bad to import a low-paid labor force. We pay foreigners low wages instead of our own citizens higher wages; we lose the benefits of trade; we create a permanent underclass of unskilled and unmotivated poor people.

The dream of the Transnationalists from Trotsky onwards is international law under direction of the best educated elites replacing national constitutions. Free flow of goods, labor, and ideas of Marx across silly, artificial borders with multiculturalism replacing outmoded restraints imposed by race and culture.

Transnationalists tend to be wealthy progressive Jews and Euroelites that seek common cause with the "disposessed" of the 3rd world.

The ultimate goal is that - obviously unsaid - labor wage differentials disappear in "levelizing" except of course for the elites who must do the heavy thinking and administer the executive leadership and run the ministries and courts. They seek to place law and unaccountable bureaucracies in place of the people voting. They seek gun confiscation so the misguided masses may not challenge the decisions of their more aware betters, plus an ever-growing list of "Nanny Laws" for the people's own good - lest they hurt themselves with bad choices....

What it means for America with 4 billion saying they wish to get inside our country if possible is ending the "oppressive" old western civ, ending most decisions made through democratic or republic processes in favor of the new Sanhedrin, and wages in Western nations sharply falling to "fairer levels" to better distribute wealth to the global masses - except of course the large estates and other things the Ruling elite will need..

Seven Machos is correct regarding reading Paglia. There are some diamonds and quite a bit of mud and crap in Paglia's writings. I am more than willing to wade through the mud to find the diamonds but Camille is never boring.

The mud and crap is her endless love and writing about Madonna and some of her writings on culture. I too have a fascination and love of Madonna (big mo) but for some reason don't want to read about it from Camille Paglia. Also, I could do without her opinion of Paris Hilton which I have no interest.

In my opinion I think Ann and Camille have some things in common. A bloggingheads between the two of you would be interesting or to just go out to dinner with the two of you would be cool.

In terms of the specific article Ann refers to I agree with Camille. I don't believe Gore would add much if he got into the race. I think he is a decent man and means well but I don't want to listen to him and he can come across as patronizing. He has a good thing going now, why waste it on a presidential race. His voice gets on my nerves and between him and Hilary's laugh they would suck the oxygen right out of the debates. I am sure Hilary's handlers have already told her no more laughing so much.

I also agree with Camille that in the debate the men seemed to handle Hilary with kid gloves. If any of them want to harm her they need to rough her up a little bit. Dowd has written about this also.

The democrats would be fools to elect Hilary. 50% of the country would not vote for her in some recent poll I read. Obama's unfavorability is so much lower than hers but he needs to mess with her. I think they are scared of Hilary which is sad because if they don't rough her up she will be the candidate going against the republicans and the republicans will pull out every stop.

Speaking of Clintons, I went to Harvard Class Day to hear Bill Clinton speak and it was really quite remarkable. His speech was amazing, speaking about how we are 99 9/10 alike. He gave some incredible examples of people doing amazing work. Most of the speech was off the top of his head (which I am sure was well thought out)and the audience was quite enthralled (I know horrible Harvard). I realize many on this site don't like Bill Clinton but the man is quite talented and can give an inspiring speech.

Seven Machos said... Why did the immigration bill fail with a Republican president pushing it and a Democratic House and Senate with leadership pushing it?

When Mickey Kaus and Lou Dobbs and the right-wing blogs all agree on something, and when seantors and representatives who are pushed by their leadership on a bill balk at it, it's fair to say that a majority of people don't want it. I say it's a huge majority.

I've never said I agree with any of this. I'm saying it's the facts on the ground. But go ahead, tell me I am wrong again.

i'm talking about a thousand mile dumbass wall, you're talking about a specific piece of legislation. so, once again, you are wrong.

1) Do you advocate open borders and if so, does that mean everyone can come in or just those south of the non-border?

you sure set the bar low on the first question. lets register a "no"

2) If not an open border advocate, but no wall advocate, do you support a massive increase in border patrol officers who will halt and send back anyone trying to cross the border illegally?

not sure its worth it. though i certainly sympathize with citizens near borders who report higher crime, budget strains from overloaded health care and educational services, etc.

3) Do you support enforcing the laws on the books now and crack down on employers and deport anyone in the country illegally?

again, dont think its worth it. i think i side with the so-called evil corporatists here. these people coming in are doing jobs that americans won't take, they aren't really "taking" jobs from anyone so much as filling a need. its not like you go to the doctors or lawyers office and find an illegal as your counterpart. its the guy who delivers your food, the guy who picks your grapes, the guy who sweeps walmart. those jobs need to be filled, the illegals represent an efficient move of labor supply to the labor demand. this is not to say that "no" american has lost his job to an illegal, but as a big picture thing. (and isn't that how the federal government is supposed to work?)

I think the immigration debate is bad for the Republican party. It will be nice when its over.

Right now its cliche among conservatives to bash Bush for their pet issues. There is nothig to lose. However, if a Dem gets elected, and the Dem starts introducing horrid policies like government health care, that were not even considered by the Bush Adm, conservatives will start yearning for the Bush years.

1) For those who gripe about how impossible it would be to get rid of the illegals already here: We certainly can do this....one at a time. Read the rest of my plan for immigration; take politics out of the equation and just do what's right, and it's not so hard.

how are we going to find the 12-20 million "illegals" that are supposedly here...and how long will it take? (can you say...a very long time...if ever?)

We "find" them all the time -- we just don't do anything with them once we do. They're here illegally, which means they either have no documents or phony documents. Either way they inevitably come to the attention of authorities. All we need to do is improve our processes for verifying people's true identity (something we desperately need for a whole host of other reasons anyway) and actually punish the ones we do catch.

2. who will do it, and how long will it take, to document the legal or illegal status of those who are located? (can you say broken system?)

3. how long do we hold those who may be legal, but with verification problems that have to be addressed...and where do we hold them...and who pays for their incarceration, food and health care?

It would be easy to have a quick and nearly-foolproof identification system for legal immigrants -- a simple ID code and fingerprint would do the trick. To verify their status, all they would have to do is provide those two things. There should be no need to incarcerate anyone who is actually in the system; those who don't should have to pay for their own incarceration.

4. when we do send the illegals back, and they are the breadwinner, who supports the "legal" dependents left behind?

That problem is best dealt with by amending the law to deny citizenship to people born here while their parents were in the country illegally.

to handle the southern border it will be 1,800 miles long and will take approximately 6 years (and you can bet many more) to build, will cost billions and billions...will have to be monitored by thousands of people and we have no idea whether it will do anything.

Every border that has had a wall built along it has experienced a reduction in unauthorized crossings along the points covered by the wall. We know a wall will reduce illegal immigration just like we know that getting shot is bad for your health.

But, sure, it'll take years to build and cost billions. So what? Illegal immigration costs billions every year in California alone. For "six years and billions and billions of dollars" its a bargain.

Seven Machos said... "People want a wall between the United States and Mexico. It is an overwhelmingly popular idea in every strata except with self-proclaimed elitists."

Just more of the Right Wing/7-Nachos Bullshit.

You see, this is the kinda crap that gets you in trouble. You just make it up and toss it out there as "fact" when you know you just pulled it out of your ass. That, little boy, is why you have zero credibility.

its a poll a year old released by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News. 47 per cent of respondents favour building a wall or a fence all along the border between Mexico and the U.S. from Texas to California, while 48 per cent are opposed.

Sloanasaurus said... "However, if a Dem gets elected, and the Dem starts introducing horrid policies like government health care..."

Sloan, are you denying that you could 1. use oodles of mental health care and 2. would benefit greatly, as would us all benefit, if YOU got to a government clinic post haste? You are really loosing a grip on here. It is evident in your writing and thought process (sic!). Your compass should tell you when you are drifing toward Cedarford and alarm bells should sound.

not sure its worth it. though i certainly sympathize with citizens near borders who report higher crime, budget strains from overloaded health care and educational services, etc.

So do you perhaps think the citizens on the border think its worth it? And do you think those strains on health care and education are simply limited to the border states? You should see some of our hospitals in Indianapolis.

And in response to the question on cracking down on employers who hired illegals you respond:

again, dont think its worth it. i think i side with the so-called evil corporatists here. these people coming in are doing jobs that americans won't take, they aren't really "taking" jobs from anyone so much as filling a need. its not like you go to the doctors or lawyers office and find an illegal as your counterpart. its the guy who delivers your food, the guy who picks your grapes, the guy who sweeps walmart. those jobs need to be filled, the illegals represent an efficient move of labor supply to the labor demand. this is not to say that "no" american has lost his job to an illegal, but as a big picture thing.

Soooo you don't think its worth it to secure the border (no wall, no increased enforcement of the border), you don't think its worth it to fine employers and deport illegals. Seems to me then I didn't set the bar too low at all with the first question as you appear to support the status quo which is essentially open borders.

So never mind the strains on social services, you advocate unlimited immigration into the US, despite the overwhelming majority of Americans who insist on securing the border. Cause if I misread any of what you said, I'd be delighted to hear from you.

Cedarford said..."The dream of the Transnationalists ... is international law under direction of the best educated elites replacing national constitutions."

And they are candid about that point, too:

"The global community of law emerging from judicial networks will more likely encompass many rules of law, each established in a specific state or region. No [one] high court would hand down definitive global rules. National courts would interact with one another and with supranational tribunals in ways that would accommodate differences but acknowledge and reinforce common values."

A. Slaughter, The Real New World Order, 76 FOREIGN AFFAIRS 183, 189 (1997) (quoted in M. Waters, Mediating Norms & Identity: The Role of Transnational Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law, 93 Geo. L. J. 487, 498-9 (2005). But as George F. Will has pointed out, it is an "unAmerican - and increasingly anti-American - idea ... that nations should increasingly be subordinated to [transnational norms] and [the] arrangements of the ‘community of nations.’”G. Will, The Slow Undoing: the assault on, and underestimation of, Nationality in THE NEOCON READER, 136 (2004) (I. Steltzer, ed.). In fact,

"[i]n some ways, the transnationalist project is yet more ambitious than Will frets about; even the sorts of international institutions that bothered Will enough to pen his essay have some kind of quantifiable, institutional restraint. What transnationalists seem to be advocating is actually all the more dangerous, precisely because, as Slaughter points out, in the making of transnational legal norms, responsibility is dispersed among many courts: '[n]o [one] high court would hand down definitive global rules.' In such a situation, there is no one institution, promulgating rules, and thus, no pressure to safeguard the reputation or intellectual and moral integrity of that institution. By diffusing responsibility and blurring substance, the transnationalist project would insulate its results from any concrete comparison to a single, definitive source of authority."

Dodd, The Misguided Search For “The One Law - And The Ongoing Struggle to Articulate it Correctly” at 22 (quoting Slaughter, supra) (footnotes omitted).

You think you know, but you don't. Learning is harder than you think, because almost anyone following either issue casually would know both presidents pushed their issue contrary to their parties' bases, who wanted EXACTLY the opposite.

Here is the problem that many on the left refuse to acknowledge. Other than the Buchanan types, few on the right are opposed to immigration. It’s the ‘illegal’ part we don’t like. Guest worker program? Bring it on. Want to become an American citizen? Welcome, but you have to come in just like an African, Russian, Pole, Czech or Peruvian which means, fill out the application and get in line like everyone else.

Why does the left have such a problem with this? Why does the left want to grant such special privledges to those coming in illegally yet do nothing for the Indian, African or Chinese that follow the rules currently in place (but not enforced, at least for those south of the border). That pretty much goes against the egalitarian grain of the modern liberal left.

Hoosier Daddy said..."Here is the problem that many on the left refuse to acknowledge. Other than the Buchanan types, few on the right are opposed to immigration. It’s the ‘illegal’ part we don’t like. "

Bingo. That's one of the things that amuses me about debating immigration or foreign law online, where people don't notice that I have an accent, and so can (and sometimes do) accuse me - an immigrant - of xenophobia. Tres amusant.

Really? You might need to get out more. I'll tell you first hand that the guy roofing the new home is making a ton more than the guy detassling corn or harvesting lettuce.

Go to any new housing development in the Indianapolis and surrounding areas and the crews are overwhelmingly Hispanic. Maybe things are different in your area but I was of course referring to my part of flyover country.

When I was in high school and college, landscaping and construction jobs were summer gold mines but damn hard to come by which left farm work or McDonalds.

So it may be ludicrious to your ears but that doesn't make it any less true.

its a poll a year old released by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News. 47 per cent of respondents favour building a wall or a fence all along the border between Mexico and the U.S. from Texas to California, while 48 per cent are opposed.

Most polls have shown majority support for building a border fence, and all polls show enormous majority support for both (a) cracking down on the influx of illegal immigrants to this country and (b) prioritizing enforcement over a "path to citizenship".

People on the left truly believe that if you disagree with them or make empirical observations that differ from their ideology, you must be crazy. There are frequent attempts by leftist psychologists and psychiatrists to label conservatism as a disease.

This will set off a firestorm from the rightwing on here but didn't you ever stop to consider that there is a major problem with all this that is our causing?

sure they are wrong to pour over the boarder but it has been open season for 40 years with only mild annoyances. Now there are a small nation of illegals...so many that law enforcement hasn't a wing and a prayer of rounding them up, doing the deportation hearings etc. and getting 12 million people out of the country.

It is their fault for coming but it is TOTALLY OUR FAULT for letting it get to this mess.

So for you cowboys who want to round up everyone and bus them back to Mexico, let me remind you that we would have to use school buses to do it because there are more of them than there are seats in regular buses...that our courts...and this is a federal issue, docket only a few hundred thousand cases a year .. and that includes a lot of very minor stuff...so now you want to stuff 12 million more cases?

Do the math. let an officer arrest 5 a day 7 days a week for 6 months. Thats 210 arrests..and all the paper and all the court appearances...So now were do we go to get to 60,000 trained INS agents out in the field doing this work.

I hate amnesty and a free ride but for Christ's sakes a fence is only part of the problem and the dumbest solution extent. The real problem is what to do with 12 million (minimum) who are here now and spread like butter over the entire nation.

idiots like 7-nachos and fen have no clue and offer nothing..simon weighs in with his typically tight assed mindset and things go to hell.

rev,show me ANY economic studies that prove hispanics take more out of the economy than they contribute.

here's a blurb from north carolina of all places...where the state was in the black (in ONE year) to the tune of about $9 billion:

By David RiceJOURNAL RALEIGH BUREAU

Officials weigh Hispanics' contribution to economy against costs to state government

January 4, 2006Report: The Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on the State of North Carolina (January 2006)

In the first study of its kind, researchers found that Hispanics added $9.2 billion to North Carolina's economy in 2004, and it cost the state $61 million for schools, health care and prisons to accommodate the rapidly growing immigrant population.

the hispanics (legal & illegal) contribute much, much more to our economy than they take away.

the examples of construction sites being closed down, etc. is anecdotal at best and doesn't reflect the fact that the overwhelming percentage of our overall workforce is made up of american citizens. (and the reason you see so many hispanic laborers and roofers is because they're the only people who will actually do the work.)

*as for the fence...get to work...it'll take years and years and cost billions and billions.

What to do with 12 million is obvious. Adopt secure ID and massive employer fines for hiring illegals and most will self-deport on loosing their jobs. The remainder will be far more managable to send back to Mexico, Camel Land, Haiti, Africa if we get law passed by Congress that limits illegal's court rights to petition against deportation.

And end the notion that illegals spitting out babies create "instant American citizens". The 14th was never set up with that intent, and no other advanced nation now allows "anchor babies" after Ireland found 8 planeloads of pregnant Nigerians desperately trying to get anchor babies with instant EU citizenship. (Actually, the French and Belgian ministers said to Ireland - end that crap!)

As for effective border fence, no one says it has to be 100% perfect. If it stops 8 of 10, that is still 700,000 illegals and their dependents that each take 19,000 more in taxpayer payments than they contribute. The fence, plus the extra agents needed to guard it and stop the mass invasion - pays for itself in a few years.

And no pro-immigrant group talks of the side benefits the fence has in making it harder for Islamoid terrorists, Chinese agents to get in.Again, if it stops 8 in 10, even though the Border Fence would not be impermiable, it is worth it for national security.

And again, pro-immigrant groups opposed to the fence - and the extra agents and high tech sensors to detect tunneling, breaches in fence, those getting through it are again silent on the huge impact that would have on the illegal drug smuggling. The Mexican officials most hysterical and screaming the loudest against the Border Fence are those in the pay of the drug cartels.

Lucky makes a coherent statement:hoosier,you have about 6,000,000 people living in indiana...and about 300,000 hispanics...and you appear to believe that they're getting all the good jobs.

Wow, no ad hominem, maybe I made a breakthrough.

Allow me to retort. If you go back and see what I posted, I stated that Indiana is also a big agricultural state as well, however, when you see who is doing the farmwork compared to the higher paying CONSTRUCTION JOBS, I stated it was a Hispanic work force getting the construction work. I didn't say all high paying jobs, I said higher paying CONSTRUCTION jobs.

I don't mind a good debate, but at least try and be accurate and not blow my comments out of context to fit your position.

there ya go...get the employer to conform...and our problems are solved. GFL.

Lucky, let me ask you the question. What is your solution? A

Are you in favor of status quo and just let anyone come in when they please?

Would you be in favor of increased border security to prevent a further influx and insist on a regulated and controlled immigration policy?

Would you be in favor of a policy that would require the registration of the current 12 million (or whatever) illegals here now with an option to a worker program and eventual citizenship?

If not why? I ask because all I hear from you and others is how fu**** up we wingnuts are, how this is our fault, and on and on. I would like to see something from your end of the field on how this should be resolved AND how we go forward.

we have 12-20 million illegals here right now (at least that's what we think...maybe more...maybe less)

a vast majority of them work hard, provide cheap labor, contribute to the economy and society. (yes, some are assholes, but we already have plenty of full-blooded american assholes, too)

1.it will be IMPOSSIBLE to track down so many people. (we can't find osama what's-his-name and he lives in a fucking cave.)

2. IMPOSSIBLE to deport them without massive hoop-jumping due to a poor immigration system, paperwork, language barriers, etc. (ever visit the DMV?)

3.it will take years to get any real numbers out of the country, all the while spending billions on who-knows-what. (MORE than anyone will ever admit)

4. it will disrupt our economy and raise prices on all kinds of everyday products and services...(and that doesn't count the $$$ spent via welfare for the "legal" immigrants left behind without the breadwinner.)

5. building a fence/wall will take years more than estimated...along with untold billions of tax dollars...everything does. (bostom tunnels/l.a. subways, etc.)

solution: some kind of amnesty, based on proper applications, i.d. cards, ss numbers, incentives to learn english, taxes...and of course HAMMERING THE EMPLOYERS who continue to hire illegals.

Now there are a small nation of illegals...so many that law enforcement hasn't a wing and a prayer of rounding them up, doing the deportation hearings etc. and getting 12 million people out of the country.

First of all, that's exactly why people favor an "enforcement first" solution -- the problem is big enough that we can't hope to deal with it unless we first make serious progress at preventing it from getting bigger. Also, bear in mind that your argument applies to just about *anything* we do with illegals -- including granting them citizenship or work permits.

That said, we don't have to handle illegals in the simplistic manner you describe. Even if we did nothing besides lock down the border, the ordinary everyday enforcement we've been doing for years would slowly decrease the number of illegals in this country. If we get creative, it would happen even faster. If we passed a law that jointly (a) offered $1000 and free passage back to the nation of origin combined with (b) an enforcement provision holding that that any illegal immigrant present in the United States forfeits all assets and is subject to ten years' hard labor working on federal infrastructure programs, the bulk of the illegals would pack up and go home without us ever having to hold hearings for them.

Do the math. let an officer arrest 5 a day 7 days a week for 6 months. Thats 210 arrests

It is 910, not 210

At a rate of fifty arrests per week -- easily attainable in areas like Southern California where illegals congregate en masse -- a thousand police could arrest 2.6 million illegal immigrants in one year.

Nor does the deportation hearing process have to be expensive and time consuming. Give every legal immigrant an ID number and take a thumbprint. If arrested on suspicion of illegality, check if they're in the system. If not, summarily expel them without a hearing. To prevent US citizens from being accidentally expelled, allow anyone who claims to be a citizen to receive a normal hearing -- but make falsely claiming to be an American citizen a major felony, punishable by a mandatory (and lengthy) jail sentence.

I hate amnesty and a free ride but for Christ's sakes a fence is only part of the problem and the dumbest solution extent.

Not even remotely. ANY solution to the illegal immigrant problem that doesn't first prevent new illegals from coming here is completely pointless. Even if we could round up and deport all 12+ million for FREE, without a solid border they're just going to walk right back across it again.

Hide the children, I think the end of days are here. I can actually agree with most of what Lucky said:

solution: some kind of amnesty, based on proper applications, i.d. cards, ss numbers, incentives to learn english, taxes...and of course HAMMERING THE EMPLOYERS who continue to hire illegals. is that a start?

I'll go with all but the incentive part. Learning English and paying taxes is a REQUIREMENT. Period, discussion closed. It was good enough for my great-grandparents 100 years ago, they can step up. You want to be a citizen, fine, pay taxes, assimilate and learn our language. Otherwise, buh bye.

But it can't stop there. You have to have border enforcement and a regulated and controlled immigration policy. If not, then it's open borders.

We have to be careful about "hammering the employers" -- it can have a chilling effect on hiring of *legal* immigrants.

Draconian punishments for hiring illegals make every employee who isn't obviously American risky to hire -- many, if not most illegals have phony documents, and in a business-hostile state like California the odds of a DA taking pity on a business that makes an honest mistake are pretty slim.

So the smart move, if you're a business owner in an environment where hiring of illegals is severely punished, is to simply not hire anyone who's foreign-born, especially foreign-born Hispanics. Since a large percentage of foreign-born workers (even Hispanic ones) are actually here legally, a lot of honest, law-abiding people end up not getting hired.

Chilling effect aside, it is a bit unfair to push enforcement off onto the private sector. It is the job of the *government* to make sure that illegals aren't in the workforce. We shouldn't expect private citizens to have to act like amateur INS investigators, especially considering that we still don't have any real form of national ID.

The California Republican Party has decided no American is qualified to take one of its most crucial positions — state deputy political director — and has hired a Canadian for the job through a coveted H-1B visa, a program favored by Silicon Valley tech firms that is under fire for displacing skilled American workers.

Wait, it gets funnier. Matthews was hired by Michael Kamburowski, the state GOP’s chief operations officer, who is … wait for it … an Australian citizen.

so you want to get rid of the illegals, but lay off the employers who hire the illegals...because we might spook them into not hiring "legal" immigrants?

Congrats on successfully reading an English language blog comment.

If the fine for employing an illegal immigrant is enough to put you at serious risk of bankruptcy -- which the fines I've seen people propose would, for private citizens and small businesses -- then the intelligent thing to do is simply never hire Mexicans and other Hispanics, unless it is obvious from talking to them that they were born here. That's unfair to the people who were decent enough to play by the rules when they came here.

i think that's why we have employment laws in place to protect "legal" citizens.

What the law says doesn't matter. The reality is that legal citizens aren't being protected.

The California Republican Party has decided no American is qualified to take one of its most crucial positions — state deputy political director — and has hired a Canadian for the job through a coveted H-1B visa, a program favored by Silicon Valley tech firms that is under fire for displacing skilled American workers.

So you dislike skilled legal immigrants, but promptly drop to your knees to suck the cock of any Mexican bean picker who can sneak across the border? Weird.

okay...but...you do know many of our ancesters spoke their native tongue for generations.

if you visit "the hill" in st. louis (many of the best italian restaurants) you'd be lucky to find 50% of the residents who speak any english at all...and they're 2nd @ 3rd generation.

italian being the constant. (should we get rid of them, too?)

If you're third generation and still can't speak English then you're either an idiot or refuse to learn which is fine, just don't expect to press 2 for Spanish/Italian etc or expect me to get you a translator because you're lazy. Third generation and still can't speak? That is simply pathetic.

My 'ancestors' were Polish but they also spoke English. Back then, there weren't multi lingual signs everywhere. I'm bi-lingual myself as are my parents but even my grandparents who came over learned the language.

All of the immigrants I know, with the exception of most of the Mexicans, speak English. Israeli, Polish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Ukranian, Russian, French... every last one learned English either shortly after coming here, or before coming here. None expected us to conveniently put up signs in *their* native language so they could keep on being a bunch of lazy illiterate fucks.